Astral Codex Ten

Sudre et al

3 min read

Sudre et al

Article

Sudre et al is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between September 02, 2021 and May 11, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Sudre et al got data from some kind of UK COVID app”; ""Sudre et al said 2%"". It most often appears alongside British Office of National Statistics, Logue et al, Long COVID.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 2
  • Issue count: 2
  • First seen: September 02, 2021
  • Last seen: May 11, 2023

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Long COVID: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
September 02, 2021 · Original source
Sudre et al got data from some kind of UK COVID app with four million users. They chose 4,000 who met various criteria and asked them about long COVID symptoms. 13% reported symptoms after a month, and 2% after three months. This is a lot less than the other studies, so what’s up? I’m not sure, but I think it might be the exclusion criteria, as shown in Supplementary Table 2. When they look at everyone regardless of criteria, they find an estimate centered in the mid 20s, and then the criteria gradually pick away at that. One especially relevant one is that they have no gap in symptom reporting; maybe if you have chronic fatigue, you’re less likely to use an app regularly. But the three month data is still surprising.
Inline links: Sudre et al, Supplementary Table 2
Highlights From The Comments On Long COVID And Bisexuality
May 11, 2023 · Original source
It is bizarre and wrongheaded to insist that there should be one “real” Long COVID number and anyone who doesn’t get it is messing up. There are no universally-used case criteria for Long COVID. Different studies’ numbers change constantly based on how strict their criteria are, how they ask the question, how long after the COVID case they’re asking, what sample they’re asking, etc, etc, etc. So for example, Logue et al found 33% of patients had Long COVID symptoms by their definition; the British Office of National Statistics said 14%, Sudre et al said 2%, and the CDC said 20%. None of these people are lying or incompetent, it’s just that there’s no single “correct” definition of Long COVID or correct population to ask about it.
Inline links: Logue et al, Sudre et al